Is anyone completely done with these absurd prices?

[AJS914]

Sure, and people don't have to buy new shiny parts either. As I said upstream, I'm just going to buy mid-range next time. I always used to buy top of the line but a $6,000 mid-range bike with electronic shifting, carbon wheels, and the mid level frame is still an awesome bike rivaling previous top tier bikes.

I'm still riding mechanical because I honestly can't see how a wire is any better than a cable. Fly by wire would cost me an extra $1000 to shift. If I were sprinting at the end of races, I'd want sprint buttons on my handlbars. If I were buying an integrated cockpit frame, I could see the appeal of no cables. Other than that, it does the same thing for a lot more and you have to plug it in every now and then.

[usr]

The top of the line iPhone way back in 2007 was 599 USD. Now the 'equivalent' model is 1,149 USD Isn't it similar to high end bicycle?

Back in 2007 the fraction of an average consumers life that happened on the pocket screen was considerably smaller. By that measure, the iPhone has become cheaper, not now expensive. Do people ride more these days?

[Roel W]

A new high end high-price brand enters the market:
Former pro riders Luca Paolini and Paolo Bettini are launching a too expensive lightweight bike with Lightweight wheels:
https://bikerumor.com/swi-thrama-lightw ... y7XMz0Ytj4
Genius idea, never seen before... wait a minute...Aurum?
Two former pro riders:Ivan Basso and Alberto 'Cero-cero-cero' Contador's. Check!
Too expensive: Check!
Lightweight wheels in it: Check!

[wheelsONfire]

A new high end high-price brand enters the market:
Former pro riders Luca Paolini and Paolo Bettini are launching a too expensive lightweight bike with Lightweight wheels:
https://bikerumor.com/swi-thrama-lightw ... y7XMz0Ytj4
Genius idea, never seen before... wait a minute...Aurum?
Two former pro riders:Ivan Basso and Alberto 'Cero-cero-cero' Contador's. Check!
Too expensive: Check!
Lightweight wheels in it: Check!

Absurd price
I'd rather buy any of the two versions (models) of BMC Masterpiece.

[tymon_tm]

these are just some boutique brands, what volume do they sell? 20 bikes a year? 50? afaik it's not an indication of anything aside from the fact in business you can always count on clients willing to pay premium over the premium just for the sake - yup, you got it - paying premium.

[tymon_tm]

There are multiple angles to this topic, perhaps a little less myopia and condescension?

sorry, didn't mean to sound like that. my argument is - it's clear as day how recent innovations in equipment and fashion make prices skyrocket. trying to explain that with business side of the things, especially not having the data to work with, seems counterproductive, no?

[Matt28NJ]

trying to explain that with business side of the things, especially not having the data to work with, seems counterproductive, no?

Bruh, this is the internets, the home of pointless arguing.

[Berzin1]

Here's what I don't understand-why is it that some manufacturers totally dropped making frames out of the the other materials available.

Supposedly, titanium used to be so cost prohibitive, now it's at the bottom of the list if you catch the right sale. I got my custom Lynskey for $500 more than I paid for one of the first successful ti models, the Bianchi Ti-Megatube. And that was in the mid-90's.

Ti, aluminum and steel still have a place in this business, but gone are the days when Colnago offered top-tier frames from each material.

[UpFromOne]

What drives me insane is the hundred and one ways to attach a brake caliper, and all the proprietary hardware that goes with it.
Then multiply that one issue by all the parameters on a frame the manufacturers can dream up.
Nothing fits anything anymore.

[ichobi]

Here's what I don't understand-why is it that some manufacturers totally dropped making frames out of the the other materials available.

Supposedly, titanium used to be so cost prohibitive, now it's at the bottom of the list if you catch the right sale. I got my custom Lynskey for $500 more than I paid for one of the first successful ti models, the Bianchi Ti-Megatube. And that was in the mid-90's.

Ti, aluminum and steel still have a place in this business, but gone are the days when Colnago offered top-tier frames from each material.

This is quite simple -

1. Carbon is easily mixed and tuned for all price range in the line up. It’s also fast to work with. When you make one flagship mold, you can reuse the mold with less expensive carbon mix for cheaper model. The scalability of this point alone makes it supersede other material except aluminum for entry / mid level model.

2. Power law - when one material is dominating the industry, you have more people with experience working on it, more tools, tooling, expertise - and thus make the cost come down for the manufacturer while gradually making advancements in terms of production tech / capacity. It also tends to get more investment in manufacturing tech / skills / labor / infrastructure. Again except aluminium it’s hard to beat carbon’s bike economy of scale and time to market.

If you have the chance to visit some of the carbon bike factory in taiwan and china you will be amazed by the speed at which their production line runs. The big factory can shell out hundred of frames from essentially carbon sheet to completed raw frameset in a day.


Ti is comparatively a harder material to work with in many aspects. It’s also not as easily tuned as carbon. In terms of mass production it simply cant rival carbon and AL

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tymon_tm]

...and forget those funky shapes with any kind of metal really. yeah, I'm aware the first aero bike (?), Cervelo Soloist, was alu. but it's shape compared to todays bikes was rather simple. and when you compared it to a Soloist carbon that came up later, it looked rather undone. I suppose there's no going back to Ti or steel, or any kind of metal (had a magnesium merida once, boy that was a great bike) simply because it would be too hard if not impossible to match today's trends for tube shapes, integration etc. and as Ichobi wrote, the knowledge and experience of working with metal isn't there anymore.

besides, I do think carbon is just a better material for framesets. and given the scale, it should be a lot cheaper by now too. when CF started taking over, the cost of producing a single frame must've been massive - equipment, the right staff, material itself, lots of mistakes along the road, etc. today it's a rather standard material, but somehow it hasn't "trickled down" to basic bikes and gear. maybe that's a concsious decision producers made - because thanks to that, they can still charge you like crazy for your top of the line bike. if there were plenty of 500$ carbon framestets, it would be a lot harder from a marketing pov to justify adding another zero to a price tag. and quite possibly it would turn out, those top models ain't that much better than basic ones...

[smartyiak]

Here's what I don't understand-why is it that some manufacturers totally dropped making frames out of the the other materials available.

Supposedly, titanium used to be so cost prohibitive, now it's at the bottom of the list if you catch the right sale. I got my custom Lynskey for $500 more than I paid for one of the first successful ti models, the Bianchi Ti-Megatube. And that was in the mid-90's.

Ti, aluminum and steel still have a place in this business, but gone are the days when Colnago offered top-tier frames from each material.

This is quite simple -

1. Carbon is easily mixed and tuned for all price range in the line up. It’s also fast to work with. When you make one flagship mold, you can reuse the mold with less expensive carbon mix for cheaper model. The scalability of this point alone makes it supersede other material except aluminum for entry / mid level model.

2. Power law - when one material is dominating the industry, you have more people with experience working on it, more tools, tooling, expertise - and thus make the cost come down for the manufacturer while gradually making advancements in terms of production tech / capacity. It also tends to get more investment in manufacturing tech / skills / labor / infrastructure. Again except aluminium it’s hard to beat carbon’s bike economy of scale and time to market.

If you have the chance to visit some of the carbon bike factory in taiwan and china you will be amazed by the speed at which their production line runs. The big factory can shell out hundred of frames from essentially carbon sheet to completed raw frameset in a day.


Ti is comparatively a harder material to work with in many aspects. It’s also not as easily tuned as carbon. In terms of mass production it simply cant rival carbon and AL

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This seems to go directly to the "absurd prices" argument. More + better + easier + volume should = less expensive.

[Mr.Gib]

If there's a market that is willing to pay for it, the company will charge for it.

The above notion of free market economics rules all. The complaint we should have is not that any particular company charges too much, but rather that there may be/is a lack of adequate competition. The fact that a bicycle can cost more than a really nice motorcycle pretty much confirms this to be so.

[euph]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

[ichobi]

Here's what I don't understand-why is it that some manufacturers totally dropped making frames out of the the other materials available.

Supposedly, titanium used to be so cost prohibitive, now it's at the bottom of the list if you catch the right sale. I got my custom Lynskey for $500 more than I paid for one of the first successful ti models, the Bianchi Ti-Megatube. And that was in the mid-90's.

Ti, aluminum and steel still have a place in this business, but gone are the days when Colnago offered top-tier frames from each material.

This is quite simple -

1. Carbon is easily mixed and tuned for all price range in the line up. It’s also fast to work with. When you make one flagship mold, you can reuse the mold with less expensive carbon mix for cheaper model. The scalability of this point alone makes it supersede other material except aluminum for entry / mid level model.

2. Power law - when one material is dominating the industry, you have more people with experience working on it, more tools, tooling, expertise - and thus make the cost come down for the manufacturer while gradually making advancements in terms of production tech / capacity. It also tends to get more investment in manufacturing tech / skills / labor / infrastructure. Again except aluminium it’s hard to beat carbon’s bike economy of scale and time to market.

If you have the chance to visit some of the carbon bike factory in taiwan and china you will be amazed by the speed at which their production line runs. The big factory can shell out hundred of frames from essentially carbon sheet to completed raw frameset in a day.


Ti is comparatively a harder material to work with in many aspects. It’s also not as easily tuned as carbon. In terms of mass production it simply cant rival carbon and AL

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This seems to go directly to the "absurd prices" argument. More + better + easier + volume should = less expensive.

I mean it kind of does? Obviously flagships models price will be pushed to the maximum market's willingness to pay, and judging from today's price, people still pay for that absurd price.

However, you have to look at the model down the line too. Today's entry level carbon's bike is a lot better than 10 years ago. If you forego big brands, you can have a competitively built, weighted, and aero'ed frameset sourced direct from chinese brands at 2x-4x less of the cost of the likes of Pinarellos and S-Works. (It could also be easier if you just pick the second tier carbon from the top brands to get 90% of the quality with may be 1.5-2x less of the flagship cost). Obviously you will have to also forego ease of warranty and communication and such, but if we talk about the quality of entry level carbon frameset alone, it has come a long way. If i were to be robbed poor today, i wouldnt mind at all riding a entry/ mid level carbon frame from reputable makers. I coudlnt say the same 10 years ago, at that time i probably would have opted for top line AL frameset.

Specifically on this economy of scale and material expertise points, you need to for now ignore the price hike due to supply chain and covid, as it's not quite representative of the trend we had for the past decade in terms of quality and price.